State approval of homosexual marriage in Scandinavia contributed to the virtual disappearance of real marriage

No matter what happens in the homosexual-marriage/civil-union controversies, marriage as an institution isn't going away, is it?

Yes, it is. Marriage has already all but disappeared in Scandinavia. Other Europeans are heading down that Nordic track. And, if gay marriage is legalized, so will we.

That is the conclusion of Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, whose article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" was published in The Weekly Standard.

Sweden was the first country in Europe to legalize homosexual unions in 1989, and Denmark and Norway followed soon thereafter. Today, a majority of children in those countries are born out of wedlock. Although some older couples are getting married after having more than one child, younger couples are dispensing with marriage altogether. Southern Seminary president Al Mohler reports that in Sweden, the few young couples who do get married often do not like to admit it, since what they have done is so far out of the norm that they feel embarrassed.

Couples just live together for awhile. If the woman has a baby, the father-unlike in the United States-will typically stay around until the baby reaches a certain age. Until recently, if they had a second child together, they would typically get married, but this has changed for the new generation. Once the children are grown, the parents typically go their separate ways.

What role has gay marriage played in the disappearance of marriage in Scandinavia? "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated," says Mr. Kurtz, "and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

More direct causes Mr. Kurtz cites include the Scandinavian welfare state, which means that the family unit is no longer necessary for economic support. Plus, to support that welfare state, taxes are so high that both parents have to work. A vast state day-care system has taken over many of the child-care duties that once were the job of families. Also, the universities are even more radical than they are in the United States, with socialists, feminists, and other social revolutionaries-including those who denounce marriage as being intrinsically oppressive-having a huge influence in public policy.

Homosexual marriage has contributed to the dissolution of marriage as a significant institution in Scandinavian culture primarily by contributing to the notion that marriage need have nothing to do with having children.

Most instructive for Americans is what happened with Norway, traditionally the most conservative of the Scandinavian states. Sweden and Denmark have always been far more liberal, and in those nations the public wanted gay marriage. In Norway, though, the general public had gay marriage foisted upon it from above, by elite judges and lawmakers. The state Lutheran church opposed not only gay marriage but the growing trend of cohabitation and having children out of wedlock. The church also fought an internal battle over the ordination of those in homosexual unions.

The media covered the church's debates over these issues, taking every opportunity to attack and ridicule Christian teachings about sexuality and marriage. As a result, the church's traditionally strong influence on Norwegian society declined. When the dust settled, the liberal pro-gay and cohabitation theologians, who were once in a minority, took over the leadership of the church.

Another important finding about the Scandinavian experience with what Mr. Kurtz describes as "de facto" gay marriage-actually, they are "civil unions"-is how few homosexuals actually enter into them. A study published by Yale's William Eskridge in 2000 showed that after nine years, only 2,372 homosexual couples took advantage of the Danish law allowing gay unions. After four years, only 749 gay Swedes and only 674 gay Norwegians bothered to "get married."

Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."

They achieved that goal, but now there is little social approval for marriage.

1- The people oppose same-sex marriage.This is a government by the people, for the people.

* Support for legalizing "gay marriage" in Massachusetts has dropped by 12 percentage points, from 48% in an earlier poll to 35%, according to a Boston Globe poll released February 21.
* At the same time, opposition to the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC) November 18 ruling increased by 14 percentage points, from 38% to 52%.
* Some 71% of Massachusetts citizens said voters in a statewide referendum should decide the issue.
* A December 2003 Zogby poll conducted in Massachusetts shows that 69% of the state's voters believe it is best for children to be raised in a household with a married mother and father.

* Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to endorse behavior that they recognize as contrary to their beliefs.
* The state would drive a wedge between children and parents as the public schools would teach that religious objections to homosexuality were hateful and bigoted. That is wrong.
* Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs. Some companies and at least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms "husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead. That is wrong.
* Many non-religious people also believe that homosexuality is wrong.

3- You cannot redefine a timeless institution.Marriage is what it is

* Marriage is not just a legal reality, but also an anthropological and sociological reality. It is under attack precisely because radicals want to legitimize their own lifestyles.
* In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. &#65533;"1
* Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

4- Every adult citizen already has equal rights.It's never been about benefits.

* Same-sex marriage activists claim that homosexuals must be allowed to "marry" in order to have the benefits and protections that only marriage provides. Wrong. The mayor of San Francisco and thousands of homosexual couples have defied that state's marriage laws and clearly exposed that it's never been about benefits. It's about destroying the definition of marriage.
* The results of a December 2003 Zogby poll indicate that 73% of registered Massachusetts voters understand that homosexuals can provide for one another with arrangements already permitted in the law.

5- If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.

* Marriage is not discriminatory. Regardless of their sexual inclinations, men and women have equal rights to bond with an opposite sex spouse in matrimony. Removing an entire sex from the equation creates something other than marriage.
* Marriage-the joining of the two sexes- is available to all, subject to age, blood and opposite-gender limitations. Removing such requirements removes the significance and uniqueness of the acquired status.
* If homosexual "marriage" is permitted, there is no logical stopping point at which to deny marriage to any combinations of people who want to "marry."

6- Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.Creating fatherless or motherless families by design hurts children.

* Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that married, mother-father households are best for children. Homosexual "marriage" denies children a mother and father. Even male/female cohabitation is dangerous for children - and homosexual "marriage" does not offer even this basic necessity for children.
* "Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades&#65533; are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school." &#65533; "Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on children's physical health and life expectancy&#65533; The health disadvantages associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into adulthood." &#65533; "Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms." &#65533; "Young teens whose parents stay married are also the least likely to experiment with tobacco or alcohol." Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values, 2002, pp. 10-13. Emphasis added.

* Adultery, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and absentee fathers and mothers have already weakened marriage. Adding homosexuality to the mix will only further destabilize marriage.
* Married mother-father families best allow children to thrive. If we want to help the next generation, we must strengthen and protect marriage, not attack its core principles of a lifelong, faithful commitment between a man and a woman.

8- Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.Let's help people overcome harmful behavior.

* Many practices associated with homosexual activity are physically dangerous. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" with the intent of promoting fidelity will not reduce health risks. Most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
* A University of California study shows that human papillomavirus (HPV) is epidemic among homosexual men - 93% of HIV-positive men, 61% of non-HIV-positive men.
* Studies in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying and the International Journal of Epidemiology indicate that homosexuality can take decades off men's lives.
* Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence. "The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991

9- The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.

* The words of the Massachusetts Constitution, on which the Supreme Judicial Court relied to declare the Commonwealth's marriage laws unconstitutional, have not changed. The marriage laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman have not changed.
* The question is: At what point did the laws suddenly become discriminatory?
* The Supreme Judicial Court apparently expects every Member of the Legislature and every citizen of the Commonwealth to accept without question that the great discovery occurred on November 18, 2003, when the Court issued its edict in Goodridge. Please don't fall for it.

* Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued. Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what's happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.
* When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.
* Americans tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion - but not all are officially promoted in law. Where does the devaluing of marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age, sex, blood or number of partners? Please don't let that happen. Future generations will thank you if you will stand up for what's right today.

1. People oppose S&M, but it's okay as long as the participants are straight.

2. The morality of millions of Americans is ignored every day and in every way by the media, the press, the government. Permitting same-gender marriage does nothing to prevent those opposed to same-gender marriage from exercising their moral choices.

3. There is no such animal as a "timeless institution". Change is our only constant.The ability to make changes to our social institutions allows us to adapt to the changing and dynamic world around us. Failure to do so eventually leads to social stagnation and decay.

4. No, they don't. Same gender couples are effectively barred from enjoying most of the priviledges and responsibilities of marriage with going to the considerable expenes of having legal instruments drawn up to secure some of those priviledges and responsibilities.

5. Marriage, whether between same or different-gender couples, gives rise to the very core of a healthy and strong society...the family. The slippery slope you are pointing to is tenuous, at best.

6. I find it doubtful as to whether the children raised in the household of convicted murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and addicts of various kinds, are being raised in an optimum environment. But no action is being taken to remove them from, or prevent their being exposed to such an environments. After all, the parents are straight (or are they?) so it's okay. Right...? Numerous <a href=http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm>studies</a> have show that the outcomes for children of same-gender parents are as good as those for different gender parents.

7. Marriage has already been weakened by the ease of divorce, and by the actions of those whose unthinking plunge into marriage leads them to the sudden realization that "Maybe this was a mistake..." before the $50,000 wedding is even paid off. This is the pitfall of a society rooted in "instant gratification".

8. There are far more deadly lifestyles out there that aren't getting the same press as same-gender relationships. This is a straw man.

9. The Massachusetts Constitution must fail to explicitly prohibit same gender marriages or the issue would never have come up.

10. You've made this argument before, and I have already dealt with it.

Originally posted by jimnyc You've not posted one fact in your reply, they were all your opinions. Your inability to differentiate between fact and opinion is very telling. Why is this trait so prevalent amongst liberals?

Click to expand...

The inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy seems to be prevalent amongst conservatives.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!